People of the Philippines vs Jesus Arrojado
Facts:
Jesus Arrojado, charged with Murder in an Information filed by the
Office of the City Prosecutor of Roxas City, filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Information against him on the ground that the investigating
prosecutor who filed the Information did not indicate therein the
number and date of issue of her Mandatory Continuing Legal Education
Certificate of Compliace, as required by Bar Matter No. 1922
promulgated by the Court on June 3, 2008. The Office of the City
Prosecutor opposed the Motion to Dismiss, contending that 1) the
Information sought to be dismissed is sufficient in form and substance;
(2) the lack of proof of MCLE compliance by the prosecutor who
prepared and signed the Information should not prejudice the interest
of the State in filing charges against persons who have violated the
law; and (3) and administrative edict cannot prevail over substantive
or precedural law, by imposing additional requirements for the
sufficiency of a criminal information.
The RTC dismissed the Information without prejudice. The
prosecutions motion for reconsideration was also denied, hence the
People of the Philippines filed a petition for certiorari and/or
mandamus before the Court of Appeals. The CA, however, dismissed
the petition. It held that the prosecution was not without any recourse
other than a petition for certiorari/mandamus as it may simply re-file
the Information as the dismissal thereof was without prejudice. Thus,
the People of the Philippines represented by the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Roxas City filed the instant petition for review on
certiorari to assail the CA decision.
Issue:
Whether or not the Motion to Dismiss the Information was proper for
failure of the Investigating Prosecutor to vindicate her MCLE Certificate
of Compliance as required under Bar Matter No. 1922.
Held:
The petition lacks merit.
Pertinent portions of B.M. No. 1922, provide as follows:
xxxx
The Court further Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
Committee on Legal Education and Bar Matters, to REQUIRE practicing
members of the bar to INDICATE in all pleadings filed before the courts
or quasi-judicial bodies, the number and date of issue of their MCLE
Certificate of Compliance or Certificate of Exemption, as may be
applicable, for the immediately preceding compliance period. Failure to
disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case
and the expunction of the pleadings from the records.
xxxx
Section 1, Rule 6 of the Rules of Court, as amended, defines pleadings
as the written statements of the respective claims and defenses of the
parties submitted to the court for appropriate judgment. Among the
pleadings enumerated under Section 2 thereof are the complaint and
the answer in a civil suit. On the other hand, under Section 4, Rule
110 of the same Rules, an information is defined as an accusation in
writing charging a person with an offense, subscribed by the
prosecutor and filed with the court. In accordance with the above
definitions, it is clear that an information is a pleading since the
allegations therein, which charge a person with an offense, is basically
the same as a complaint in a civil action which alleges a plaintiffs
cause or cause of action. In this respect, the Court quotes with
approval the ruling of the CA on the matter, to wit:
xxxx
[A]n information is, for all intents and purposes, considered an
initiatory pleading because it is a written statement that contains the
cause of action of a party, which in criminal cases is the State as
represented by the prosecutor, against the accused. Like a pleading,
the Information is also filed in court for appropriate judgment.
Undoubtedly then, an Information falls squarely within the ambit of
Bar Matter No. 1922, in relation to Bar Matter 850.
Even under the rules of criminal procedure of the United States, upon
which our rules of criminal procedure were patterned, an information is
considered a pleading. Thus, Rule 12(a), Title IV of the United States
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, states that: [t]he pleadings in a
criminal proceeding are the indictment, the information, and the pleas
of not guilty, guilty, and nolo contendere. Thus, the Supreme Court of
Washington held that:
An information is a pleading. It is the formal statement on the part of
the state of the facts constituting the offense which the defendant is
accused of committing. In other words, it is the plain and concise
statement of the facts constituting the cause of action. It bears the
same relation to a criminal action that a complaint does to a civil
action; and, when verified, its object is not to satisfy the court or jury
that the defendant is guilty, nor is it for the purpose of evidence which
is to be weighed and passed upon, but is only to inform the defendant
of the precise acts or omissions with which he is accused, the truth of
which is to be determined thereafter by direct and positive evidence
upon a trial, where the defendant is brought face to face with the
witnesses.
In a similar manner, the Supreme Court of Illinois ruled that [a]n
indictment in a criminal case is a pleading, since it accomplishes the
same purpose as a declaration in a civil suit, pleading by allegation the
cause of action in law against [a] defendant.
As to petitioners contention that the failure of the investigating
prosecutor to indicate in the subject Information the number and date
of issue of her MCLE Certificate of Compliance is a mere formal defect
and is not a valid ground to dismiss such Information, suffice it to
state that B.M. No. 1922 categorically provides that [f]ailure to
disclose the required information would cause the dismissal of the case
and the expunction of the pleadings from the records. In this regard,
petitioner must be reminded that it assailed the trial courts dismissal
of the subject Information via a special civil action for certiorari filed
with the CA. The writ of certiorari is directed against a tribunal, board
or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions that acted
without or in excess of its or his jurisdiction or with grave abuse of
discretion.5 Grave abuse of discretion means such capricious or
whimsical exercise of judgment which is equivalent to lack of
jurisdiction.6 To justify the issuance of the writ of certiorari, the abuse
of discretion must be grave, as when the power is exercised in an
arbitrary or despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility,
and it must be so patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a
positive duty or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined, or to
act at all, in contemplation of law, as to be equivalent to having acted
without jurisdiction7. Since the trial courts dismissal of the subject
Information was based on a clear and categorical provision of a rule
issued by this Court, the court a quo could not have committed a
capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment nor did it exercise its
discretion in an arbitrary or despotic manner. Thus, the CA did not
commit error in dismissing petitioners petition for certiorari.
In harping on its contention that the ends of justice would be best
served if the criminal case would be allowed to proceed in order to
determine the innocence or culpability of the ciccused, petitioner
sounds as if the dismissal of the Information left the prosecution with
no other recourse or remedy so as to irreversibly jeopardize the
interests of the State and the private offended party. On the contrary,
the Court agrees with the CA that the dismissal of the Information,
without prejudice, did not leave the prosecution without any other
plain, speedy and adequate remedy. To avoid undue delay in the
disposition of the subject criminal case and to uphold the parties
respective rights to a speedy disposition of their case, the prosecution,
mindful of its duty not only to prosecute offenders but more
importantly to do justice, could have simply re-filed the Information
containing the required number and date of issue of the investigating
prosecutors MCLE Certificate of Compliance, instead of resorting to the
filing of various petitions in court to stubbornly insist on its position
and question the trial courts dismissal of the subject Information,
thereby wasting its time and effort and the States resources.
The Court is neither persuaded by petitioners invocation of the
principle on liberal construction of procedural rules by arguing that
such liberal construction may be invoked in situations where there
may be some excusable formal deficiency or error in a pleading,
provided that the same does not subvert the essence of the
proceeding and connotes at least a reasonable attempt at compliance
with the Rules. The prosecution has never shown any reasonable
attempt at compliance with the rule enunciated under B.M. No. 1922.
Even when the motion for reconsideration of the RTC Order dismissing
the subject Information was filed, the required number and date of
issue of the investigating prosecutors MCLE Certificate of Compliance
was still not included nor indicated. Thus, in the instant case, absent
valid and compelling reasons, the requested leniency and liberality in
the observance of procedural rules appear to be an afterthought,
hence, cannot be granted.
In any event, to avoid inordinate delays in the disposition of cases
brought about by a counsels failure to indicate in his or her pleadings
the number and date of issue of his or her MCLE Certificate of
Compliance, this Court issued an En Bane Resolution, dated January
14, 2014 which amended B.M. No. 1922 by repealing the phrase
Failure to disclose the required information would cause the dismissal
of the case and the expunction of the pleadings from the records and
replacing it with Failure to disclose the required information would
subject the counsel to appropriate penalty and disciplinary action.
Thus, under the amendatory Resolution, the failure of a lawyer to
indicate in his or her pleadings the number and date of issue of his or
her MCLE Certificate of Compliance will no longer result in the
dismissal of the case and expunction of the pleadings from the
records. Nonetheless, such failure will subject the lawyer to the
prescribed fine and/or disciplinary action.
In light of the above amendment, while the same was not yet in effect
at the time that the subject Information was filed, the more prudent
and practical thing that the trial court should have done in the first
place, so as to avoid delay in the disposition of the case, was not to
dismiss the Information but to simply require the investigating
prosecutor to indicate therein the number and date of issue of her
MCLE Certificate of Compliance.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. The Decision and
Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 8, 2011 and April
18, 2013, respectively, in CA-G.R. SPNo. 04540 are AFFIRMED.